On one hand, the assassination of Gerald Bull represents a great leap backward in space flight, and because space flight is the highest priority of humanity over the next few billion years, it represents a great leap backward for human civilization. Maybe it'll turn out that that act ultimately causes us not to get off the planet in time.
It is curious that Bull was able to convince Saddam Hussein to invest in a highly experimental, unaimable, unmovable (so easily destroyable by enemy aircraft or missiles) supergun. Maybe Saddam believed those shortcomings could eventually be corrected to make it a viable military weapon. However, optimistically, maybe Saddam wanted only to be a patron to this technology, to aid in the development of something truly unique even with no direct military purpose whatsoever, in which case Bull's assassination was truly a tragedy. In an alternate universe, Saddam's supergun might these days be resupplying the International Space Station. Even if the supergun were to ultimately not work, failure would provide valuable experience for future engineering and technology.
(Upon further reflection, although supergun would not be useful as an offensive weapon to launch an unprovoked attack -- it would immediately be destroyed in the retaliatory counterattack with its location revealed by its launch signature visible to surveillance -- a concealed supergun would be useful as a deterrent against unprovoked attack, a defensive weapon. Destroying a country's ability to defend itself, to deter attacks against itself, does seem rather sinister.)
On the other hand, if a gun (powered by conventional fuel, not an electromagnetic railgun) is a promising method for space launch, why hasn't development continued by others, especially those in "friendly" countries, after Bull's assassination?
No comments :
Post a Comment